R v Thompson - [2006] NZSC 3

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR PARTICULARS IDENTIFYING COMPLAINANTS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 42/2005 [2006] NZSC 3

SCOTT SIMEON THOMPSON

v

THE QUEEN

Hearing: 13 December 2005
Court: Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Henry JJ Counsel: G J King and C J Milnes for Appellant
J C Pike and A Markham for Crown

Judgment: 15 February 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

(Given by Blanchard J)

THOMPSON V R SC 42/2005 15 February 2006

Introduction

[1] Mr Thompson was convicted at a jury trial in the District Court at Hamilton of eight offences involving physical violence against his domestic partner and two of sexual offending against her young daughter. His appeal to the Court of Appeal on several grounds was dismissed.1 The further appeal to this Court by leave is on the single ground of whether there was a miscarriage of justice as a result of prejudicial material being revealed in evidence given by the complainant partner during her extensive and vigorous cross-examination by Mr Thompson’s trial counsel.

[2] The Court for this appeal was constituted with four members under s 30(1) of the Supreme Court Act 2003.

The material in issue

[3] The appellant and the complainant first met in 1998 when she visited Linton prison where he was serving a sentence of imprisonment. She made regular visits to him in that prison. After he was moved to Waikeria prison in 1999 she shifted her residence to Otorohanga in order to be near him. Three of the charges – on two of which he was actually acquitted – related to assaults said to have occurred during her visits to him at Waikeria. A defence pre-trial application for severance of these counts was dismissed.

[4] The remaining charges of violence against this complainant related to the time after he was released on parole in February 2002, some three and a half years after they had first met, when he began living with the complainant and her three daughters. The last four of these incidents took place on 29 October of that year.

[5] In her evidence-in-chief, the conduct and content of which was not the subject of any criticism by counsel for the appellant, the complainant described a course of violence towards her by Mr Thompson beginning at Waikeria. Necessarily, therefore, the jury had to be made aware that Mr Thompson had been

1 CA445/04 16 June 2005 (Hammond, Baragwanath & Potter JJ).

serving a lengthy prison sentence. They were not, however, told at any stage of the nature of any of his prior offending. Although reference was made both in the Court of Appeal and before this Court to some 11 matters which were mentioned or occurred during defence counsel’s cross-examination, which had taken almost a day, Mr King, who did not appear below, accepted that only four points could arguably be said to have given rise to a miscarriage…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Thompson

Details

AGLC: R v Thompson [2006] NZSC 3
Case: [2006] NZSC 3
Decision Date: 15 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Scott Simeon Thompson appealed against his conviction for multiple charges of violence and sexual offending against his domestic partner and her daughter. The appeal focused on whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to prejudicial material introduced during the complainant’s cross-examination. The Court of Appeal had dismissed the appeal, and Thompson sought further appeal to the Supreme Court.

The legal issue was whether the introduction of certain evidence during cross-examination led to a miscarriage of justice, specifically whether the prejudicial material was so significant that it could not be mitigated by a jury direction. The Court had to determine if the trial judge and the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the prejudicial effect could be addressed through appropriate directions to the jury.

The Supreme Court found that the trial judge and the Court of Appeal had not erred in their assessment. The Court agreed that any prejudicial effect was adequately addressed by the trial judge’s direction to the jury to disregard the irrelevant material. The Supreme Court noted that the prejudicial statements were a direct response to the defence’s cross-examination and were relevant to the issues being raised by the defence. The Court also highlighted that the jury acquitted Thompson on most of the prison-related charges, indicating that they were able to follow the directions and not be unduly influenced by the prejudicial statements. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial judge’s direction effectively mitigated any potential prejudice, and therefore, there was no miscarriage of justice.

The final orders were that the appeal was dismissed.

Orders